Interpreting Scripture

Posted on April 19, 2012

When Christians preach, teach or argues over theological and ethical issues, they often appeal to Scripture and to what it actually ‘says’. Imbedded in statements like this is the assumption that the text can ‘speak’ on its own which is a highly problematic position to take since it’s impossible to give any reason from Scripture for why this would be a valid conclusion without contradicting the conclusion itself. To put it simple, you cannot speak of what Scripture ‘says’ without involving yourself, but as soon as you involve yourself it’s not the Scripture that speaks, its you. The text doesn’t ‘say’ anything without the reader, it’s silent and meaningless until the readers mind respond to the text and therefore the meaning of Scripture can only ‘appear’ through the act of interpretation. Hence, the focal question the readers of Scripture needs to adress is by what methods the act of interpretation should be done. This topic is obviously a big debate among scholars and church leaders but is in my own experience rarely spoken of publicly in many of our churches.

I want to know your thoughts on this so I’ll end this short comment with the question whether we should or should not deal with this issue more extensively among ordinary churchgoers?

Advertisements

Freestyle your social networks

Like this:

Related

58 Comments

I think you begin with a shaky foundation. Of course, you are correct to point out that people personify Scripture when they speak of Scripture ‘speaking’ or ‘saying’ something. However, I think it is equally untrue to assert that the meaning of Scripture only appears through the act of interpretation.

Historic Christianity, language usage and our own personal use of language all point to a text or phrase having at least one definite meaning:

The person who spoke or wrote meant something definite when they used certain words.

So because the Bible was written by people to people we can be sure it has at least one meaning prior to interpretation. This meaning is what the writer meant when he used specific words.

To be sure, there is often some work to be certain we have the correct understanding of the meaning of words which were used two, three or four thousand years ago. Yet I think the vast majority of the text of Scripture can be understood at this level of meaning.

Biblically, I think we can assert another level of meaning as well. The Bible says about itself that God inspired the writing of Scripture. So there is the meaning of the person who wrote the words and there is also the meaning of the God who directed the writing.

One way to make this more clear is to think of intentions. If I say to my lovely wife, “I love you,” then I am choosing specific words with specific meanings to communicate my intentions to my wife. It would be unreasonable for her to hear these words and conclude I never wanted to see her again. Rather, the words carry a meaning which indicates my intentions.

In the Bible, because it is a book which is inspired by God, we can see the broad outlines of God’s intentions towards mankind. These broad intentions then provide the detailed meaning for various passages in the Bible.

So I think the real challenge is not necessarily to do with interpreting the meaning of Scripture – this is a matter for scholarship and careful, scientific study. The real challenge, in my view, is the discernment of the application of Scripture once its meaning is understood.

You are simply wrong on basically every point you’re making. Pure ideology through and through. There is no argument for why there has to be ‘at least one meaning prior to interpretation’. Please try to argue for your case, if you will, but remember that it’s not enough to say ‘the Bible is the Word of God and it says so’ since such an opinion in itself would be nothing more than your own subjective interpretation. Good luck.

And a primary reason for not discussing it, as I see it, is that it calls into question the validity of everything in scripture. The Bible is God’s word. It’s the primary resource for Christians for any question regarding their faith. Is homosexuality a sin? Read the Bible. How should I act as a husband? Read the Bible. When I ask my pastor for advice about anything, I assume he’s calling upon his extensive knowledge of the Bible (and that’s one of the reasons I trust him; and if I don’t, for any reason, I pray to God for guidance or I seek out a new pastor).

If I assume that the validity of scripture is subject to interpretation, then I cannot accept anything anyone says about it. The rote response to a view I disagree with is, “Well that’s just your interpretation.” This is the core problem, and the best solution is to approach scripture from the position that there is a right and wrong way of reading it.

In other words, I think I have to disagree with the idea that “the text doesn’t ‘say’ anything without the reader.” That can’t be right. If it is, then everything is subjective.

Me being me-I would like to reflect much more on what you are saying-but I would point out as a writer, that writers deliberately create within words and the spaces between them; multi layered levels of meaning for the express purpose of making one sentence mean something unique to each person that reads it according to their own perceptive/life experience/level of understanding and so on. So in that way-yes everything is subjective. What we bring to the table as it were, detirmines what we find on it. As to whether this should be dealt with in churches as opposed to where it sits at the moment with theologians and church leaders-I would say possibly not. My thinking on this is that many people get comfort and direction from the “structured form” which they can follow and know what is what. That form is set from those who do question these issues. I feel that people who are ready to go onto this form of thinking themselves do so independently of the structure and form anyway, as and when they feel drawn to do so. Everyone has their starting point on their journey, and some then develop onwards from there.

Who is “deliberately” keeping anyone in ignorance? The Church? People replying to this thread? You or me? That’s a lot of responsibility to lay on our shoulders. What if the person I’m trying to talk to doesn’t want to listen? What if I’m wrong, but I’m too bull-headed to listen to other people? There was a time when the Church did keep people ignorant; whether it was completely intentional or not is up for debate (consider the logistics of trying to teach thousands of peasants to read and write in an age without the printing press; I’m not trying to justify it, I’m just saying it happened). These days, however, I cannot believe that anyone in Western society… then again…

That respons was to Stephanie who wrote: “As to whether this should be dealt with in churches as opposed to where it sits at the moment with theologians and church leaders-I would say possibly not. My thinking on this is that many people get comfort and direction from the “structured form” which they can follow and know what is what.”

So I didn’t mean it as an accusation or anything like it. Just an honest question whether we shouldn’t lift issues like this one in our churches just because, as Stephanie puts it, people get comfort and direction from the “structured form”. I have discussed this issue with many pastors and they seem to want to talk about it with the members of their churches, but they don’t know how to do it.

My apologies; I may have read more into what you were saying than you intended. I agree that there should be more detailed conversations about scripture, how we read it, and what we can learn from it; but that sort of exploration requires a certain background. I mean, I believe God’s word is accessible to all people at all levels, but some topics are too… academic for some people. In other words, when a person is struggling just to stay afloat, we should worry about giving them a life preserver before we teach different swimming techinques, or how to go SCUBA diving.

Hi Gary,Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that it will pbrbaoly never happen. I think that there is a polarisation of education to some extent, however, I don’t see how this could be ramified.Thanks again for your input!

I agree that scripture is all about interpretation, like any book. There are markings on a page, and then there is meaning, and meaning is created in people, not on a page. I believe God creates meaning in us when we read, and the capacity for different interpretations is therefore infinite.

It is difficult to see how the Bible can literally be the word of God, because of all the different versions and translations and possible interpretations. Which one is the word of God? Are the apocryphal writings also the word of God (which doesn’t appear in all Bibles)? Who decides what is the word of God, and by what right?

You seem to presuppose a definition of ‘The Word of God’ that I wouldn’t agree on. Don’t you think that what you write in the first paragraphe constitute a good argument for us to understand the Bible as the ‘Word of God’?

“the evidence speaks for itself…” A phrase I’m sure you’ve heard… Obviously, we know evidence never “speaks” literally, nor, as you’ve pointed out, does my bible ever call out to me. You are right, words on pages mean nothing to someone who never reads them, or reads them and yet never applies their truth. As for interpreting, there R 2 things biblical leaders have to remember when teaching:
1. Interpretation is, “this is what the word says,” and then read.
2. Never say, “this is what this verse means TO ME.”
Really, the bible isn’t open for personal interpretation. Only literal. And this isn’t discussed in churches because if the pastor believes in personal interpretation, he can’t preach on this lest he reveal himself to be in the wrong.
If the pastor believes all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17), then there isn’t much need to teach on the matter.

My own view is that we don’t have to choose. The original authors meant to say something, the original hearers would have understood something, and the BIble writers interpreted one another in particular ways (eg., the way Chronicles and Isaiah interprets Samuel-Kings, or Daniel and Chronicles interprets Jeremiah or the NT interprets the OT).
However, it is also true that we interpret, bringing ourselves (and hopefully the holy spirit) into the reading. We can’t help it. For example, “husband” is a much different experience in the U.S. than in Ghana or Jamaica or Japan. The experience is different for us today than for my grandparents. Another example is “homosexuality”–the way it is experienced today is not something we see in history. The Bible talks about homo-erotic activity, but it takes a Western reading to imagine homosexuality being addressed in the Bible. A third example is slavery–the great British & North American anti-slavery leaders used Scripture to throw off the yoke, and we know Scripture includes rules for taking slaves. We interpret.
Moreover, words change. I’ve written about it here: http://apilgriminnarnia.com/2012/04/12/well-have-a-gay-old-time-or-why-new-bible-translations-are-needed/. And all our reading of translations are a kind of interpretation already–the KJV, NIV, ESV etc. were all made under certain religious, political and cultural perspectives.
Does that mean that it is all subjective? No, I don’t think so.
I think this is why we read the Scripture in a community. We come out with ideas and round off the edges in conversation that is international, multi-cultural, intra- and inter-denominational, multi-gendered, multi-generational reading group. As we do so, and as we read in the context of church history, i think we can do a good job.
Sometimes heresy occurs, and leaders must rise up and speak lovingly and critically into that untruth. Other times, damaging theology comes up, like prosperity gospel–the very lack of substance there will mean that it plays out in time. The reality is that we do the best we can.
Just my thoughts.

Sounds like you’ve been reading Dale Martin’s essay, “The Myth of Textual Agency” – which is the introduction to “Sex and the Single Savior.” It’s a great book, and Martin makes some great points. However, Martin is simply wrong about textual agency. Why? Well, I certainly do agree that we cannot assume our own context does not shape our interpretation. The church has always known this. A good counter-read would be Karl Barth’s discussion about “God-talk” (Karl Barth, “I. Revelation, 5.Theology” in Church Dogmatics: A Selection, ed. Helmut Gollwitzer, pp. 81ff).

Two questions I think you should consider: (1) Are you a communicating agent, using this blog to communicate with me? (2) Can someone understand the text of Scripture without faith and the Church?

(1) Of course you are communicating with us through your post. You are talking about scriptural interpretation and textual agency. What actually is doing the ‘saying’ is your main topic. You are not talking about sheep. If I were to post a reply about sheep, then you would say I’m loony and that I haven’t actually read the text. If I make a point and you realize I misunderstood you, you will quote some section of the text to suggest I read it incorrectly. Meaning, there is something about your own intentions that come through in the text, that is completely independent of what I as a reader am bringing. I did not wake up early this morning and decide: “Ok, now I want to talk about textual agency.” No, you made a position on a blog and I am trying to respond. The direction of inference was first from you through the text, which I read, to me.

(2) And yes, there is something about my own agency as a reader that makes my interpretation couched in my own context. (a) I have read Dale Martin’s essay on textual agency, so I am not beginning my reading of your blog blind to the subject. I know something already about textual agency (even if I’m still confused about it). (b) I am decidedly evangelical and believe God is acting to make God’s self known and the text of Scripture is one of the main tools God chose to use, through the church, for that reason. And, (c) I am a Barthian and think Karl Barth’s perspective about theology as happening within the context of a community is far superior an argument about how interpretation of theological information works than anything Dale Martin has argued.

Therefore, I have a discussion with you about what you said. I am bringing myself to the text of your blog and “making meaning” out of it for myself. (Wow! I really hate that wording, but that is the best I can do.) But, that does not deny that you had something to say, and actually did “SAY” something in your blog post, and that you have the authority–even the responsibility–to make sure we understand you correctly. If we misquote you to the press and you become famous because you said something dangerous, it would be your responsibility to respond and defend yourself.

In summary, the text speaks because there are words that are clearly written that we cannot simply change because we do not like them. We do bring ourselves and our beliefs and contexts to the Scriptures. This is why many of us do not believe in the heresy of “sola scriptura” because, without faith and discipleship, you should not assume that you cannot assume the text functions in the right contexts. However, here we find the role of the church (which is analogous to the role of the readers of your blog), whose job it is to read together, “make meaning” (ugh) together, and judge our understandings about faith and God from the witness of the texts.

Sola Scriptura makes the assumption that the text alone functions sufficiently for faith. Proof that it is heresy is evident, at least, in two ways:

1) it denies everything about the text of scripture (its narrative content is about a covenant community, it was written and compiled by a covenant community, it has been handed down by a covenant community, it was decided what elements are to be included by a covenant community, and it has been interpreted from generation to generation through a tradition practiced by a covenant community.) In other words, scripture it is a collective document of a covenant community given to us through a (or even multiple) faith tradition.

2) It denies the need for discipleship in Christian formation. It assumes that anyone could simply pick it up and begin reading it and everything that person would need to know (in faith terms) is there. Academic biblical studies shows that people can spend decades of their life studying the text. But, studying the text of scripture, even knowing it by heart, and even having an understanding of its main arguments is not the same as having faith or knowledge about God. People who take their discipleship seriously, seeking to be formed under the belief in an acting God who both rescued Israel from Egypt and raised Jesus from the dead, read the text for completely different reasons and in a completely different way. That does not mean that there is not a knowledge overlap. Only that we are doing something different with the text. Sola Scriptura assumes that faith comes from God through the text. The church teaches that faith comes from God through a covenant community who has made the text its primary source for discipleship and communicating its narrative–the text tells us who we are, and helps us remember where we are going. But, it must be read in community if it is to be used as a document for discipleship.

You make some interesting points, but we are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to this issue. I will say this. Your interpretation of Sola Scriptura seems to differ from the Roman Church’s interpretation.

Where we disagree:

I do believe that everything a person needs to be saved is contained within the pages of The Bible.

I believe that Faith does come from God through the reading of the Biblical text. We as Pastors/Ministers are simply facilitating a persons understanding of the Scripture, but that Scripture means something different to each person, and is personal to that person.

Where we agree:

I believe that a person who knows little or nothing of Christ needs Discipleship in order to understand what they are reading.

The Bible is a book that has been passed down through the ages and is a compilation of various writings that were bound together and made into 1 Holy book.

As I understand it, (and I will be the first to admit that my understanding of the Catholic Church is limited to the comparative religion classes I took in Bible College), the Roman Church view’s Scripture as just 1 of 3 equal parts that make up the Christian Faith (The Others being Church Tradition, and the episcopacy). And as I stated above, I do believe a new Christian that knows nothing of The Bible does need a mentor, I do not believe that traditions of men or men (no matter if it is The Pope or an Altar Boy) within a Church are in any way on par with Scripture. My belief is that as a Pastor, I am to present the scripture, explain what I believe it to mean, and then encourage those in my congregation to read it for themselves and apply it to their lives.

I have read Dale Martin’s essay and I guess the language in this post testifies about that. However, Martin is far from the only one that I have read on the subject so don’t assume that the thoughts I tried to provoke in my readers is simply what I understood him to have expressed in ‘The myth of textual agency’. Now, let me give a few remarks to why I don’t agree with you.

Your counter argument depends on the fact that I am a ‘communicating agent’ and this is obviously not something that I will contest. Neither will I argue against that I had an intension when I wrote the post we’re talking about. However, that doesn’t explain that you as a reader understands the intention I had when I wrote the post without interpreting the text. Further, the text now exists apart from me. I’m its author but the ‘I’ who wrote it is no longer the ‘I’ who exists in the present. This is true even if the text I wrote is just a few hours old. Just think about the fact that I have read the comments to the text and taken them into account. This (and other) experiences has changed me, hence the author of the text doesn’t exist any longer. The text stands on its own and although I have more insights into the authors experiences, knowledge, intentions, etc., than any other, I also have to go through the process of interpretation if I read the text. Thus, it’s impossible even for me to get to the full intention of the author, more so for everyone else, and I claim this shows that the author’s intentions is as much a part of the hermeneutical process as the interpretation of the text. This is not to say that we shouldn’t try to understand the biblical authors intentions, what I’m saying is just that we cannot identify their intentions from an objective perspective and this renders a foundationalist (or fundamentalist) reading of Scripture impossible to defend intellectually.

You also write that you are ‘decidedly evangelical’. Since this terms can have multiple meanings it’s hard to know exactly what it is that you have decided for. Anyhow, regardless of what evangelical branch you confess allegiance to, I would claim that this is not an argument that belongs in this debate since this has much more to do with your social identity and belonging than theological hermeneutics. Perhaps people in your social group tend to believe what you believe but that in itself is not an argument for your case, rather you would have to explain to me why you as a community believe what you believe since that is the question we’re discussing.

Although I clearly take issue with some of your thoughts, I agree with you that theology is a communal activity and that it is the church’s responsibility to continue doing theology.

(1) The text now exists apart from you. I agree. My point is that the text also exists apart from me. Luckily, I get to have this conversation with you about what the text “says” and make the distinction between that and what your intentions might have been. The argument that Scripture does not “say” anything only makes it as if the text has nothing to say, and therefore, I can make it say whatever I want. That is what I am denying. I agree, we can have different interpretations. This is an important point. This is why I argue one cannot learn to read and interpret the text faithfully outside of a covenant community. (Read my response above.) But, if the text says, “Jesus wept.” We may come up with different understandings about what this means, but we cannot change the fact that it actually does say something—and my interpretation must submit to that, just as it would if I were speaking with you face to face.

(2) I clearly qualified what I meant by evangelical when I used it. I “believe God is acting to make God’s self known and the text of Scripture is one of the main tools God chose to use, through the church, for that reason.” Of course, this is not all I mean by the term. However, it was not my point. I was using it as an example as a way of laying out what my own context is when coming to your blog. I was explaining my own context. That’s all. It was an example.

HaHa! Talk about agency and confusion 🙂 . words@worship is a community weblog that I administer, with an agreement from multiple authors. It did not seem right for me to continue to post in this discussion using that name, as it would assume to put my opinion as the opinion for an entire community.

Okey. No worries. I believe that we are in agreement with each other. I don’t say that every interpretation is equal. Absolutely not. The argument I put forth in the post is that the text doesn’t speak on its own and the consequence is that it must be interpreted, hence theological hermeneutics becomes very important. The problem is that a lot of people don’t seem to recognize this but take it on faith that they can simply hear and understand God’s direct and unmediated voice when they open their specific translation of the Bible.

You covered a lot of ground today. Thanks for your patience in our discussion, JP. Anxious for the next one! (Oh, and just send me a note if you think my replies are too long. I’m just enjoying the discussion. It is good practice to work through these arguments with others, and I appreciate it. Wouldn’t want to wear out my welcome.) 🙂

My wife and I have been very blessed in our lives. We have also lived turghoh very tight times ( I. E., blood donations.) We have always felt the love if others. Many times, we picked up the bill for another at a resturant. Other times we paid for another’s groceries. Another time we put together a baby shower for a lady we never met who left an abusive home. Instead of money, we gave a man in the rain a sleeping bag, a coat, and accessories along with a gift card for a meal at Denny’s. When my wife ad I ran into financial issues, we were blessed by people who remained anonymous with a $500 gift card twice. We always asked why. We had a very hard time accepting. Why us? LovePay it forward It will come back when needed

I think one thing is looking at the entire thing as a whole, for the consistent theme and message…God loves us with an incredible love. He’s loving, merciful and just, so much so that He became man and died a cruel death, was buried and rose again, so that we can be saved from our sins. Our greatest command is to love Him, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. But there is a devil…an enemy who seeks to do everything He can to take us away from God. And there is a hell. God is just, so for those who refuse the gift He offers us, they are choosing hell over the eternal life He offers.

There are some areas of the Bible that ‘seem to be’ contradictions, etc. But I don’t believe they are. I just think that keeping that primary message in mind is important. And then I think its important as well to pray when we do our devotionals…pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to help us…and not just to understand the words, but to understand what God might be speaking directly to us through them too.

I do agree with Simon Vesper above that sometimes we just have to admit that the words say what they say. Any alternative interpretation is probably based on our desires for it not to say what we don’t want to hear. But I do think there are also ways in which it is subject to interpretation, or personal application. Maybe its more in just fully understanding what it says. And that, I don’t think we will in this lifetime. (1 Cor. 13:12)

I do know that if we pray to God, and trust Him, then He will help us understand.

Thank you very much for the post, and the opportunity for discussion! Blessings…Anne

In the past, here in the Bible belt, I have always been looked at strangely and, basically, told “you’re wrong” anytime I have questioned the “literal” meaning of scripture. It has never made sense to me how only Christians (again) can go to heaven because only they follow the scriptures correctly, when even amonst themselves, they cannot agree on the meanings and entire denominations or sub-denominations have sprung up over one word or verse.
I think it would be good if the clergy were able to come to grips with giving sermons or messages that dealt with the fact that a literal interpretation is impossible because of the reasons you stated above and others, I imagine. However, people would blame the minister, I am afraid, seek to have him/her removed, and go back to their old beliefs.
Someone mentioned comfort – yes – people like their comfort. Forget about the fact that the “church” held this huge meeting to vote on which scriptures should be included in the “Bible” and the book of James almost didn’t make it. The ones that didn’t just did not “say” the message the church wanted to convey. Does that make them wrong? Does that make them invalid? Jesus, according to the scriptures, preached at the Pharisees and their methods of running the church all the time. Was He wrong? Was He invalid?
Sorry, just venting a bit, here, where it is somewhat safe. Good Post!
Scott

The Pharisees lived and breathed the letter of the law. Jesus arrived and lived and breathed the Spirit of the law. The letter of the law proved toxic and deadly. The Spirit of the law is invigorating and life-giving. The Pharisees killed Jesus over the fact that he wouldn’t adhere to their rigid law interpretations.

The more I read and study the bible with my heart attuned to the Spirit of the law–which is love–the more freedom I enjoy in my relationship with God and in my community. The Pharisees treated others like children, seting themselves up as ultimate authority figures. Jesus wants us to treat each other with respect and let the Holy Spirit be our ultimate authority. Of course, that opens our Christian faith up to accommodating a vast amount of differences, but I think God is big enough to moderate all these.

I’ve put away my Hebrew/Greek dictionary and Strong’s Concordance for now. I’m having way too much fun reading my bible as a beautiful work of literary art that speaks messages to my needy heart instead of literal doctrine to my finite mind.

When I sit down to write something, I have a point. I know what I want to say, and how I want to say it. (Whether I accomplish that well, poorly, or at all, is a different matter.) I have a message.

Of course, when I send my words off to a second person, that reader has no idea what I originally intended with the words. The reader’s interpretation is reliant on the words themselves, and admittedly, if I haven’t done my job right, the words might be misinterpreted.

On the other hand, GOD is the author of scripture. God had a point and knew what He wanted to say, when He inspired people to write the Bible. And God, being God, is obviously going to accomplish that well. When He sends His words off to us, as readers, He isn’t reliant only on the words on the page, but also on the Holy Spirit, who lives in us and guides us. Yes, it’s true that people can still twist scripture to say something it doesn’t, but that isn’t a fault in the scripture itself–the message in the scripture remains pure.

Of course, maybe I’m operating from a different concept of scripture than you are, in which case my argument might not hold water with you. 🙂

Simply wish to say your article is as surprising. The clearness to your publish is just great and that i can suppose you’re a professional on this subject. Well with your permission allow me to grasp your feed to stay up to date with approaching post. Thanks one million and please keep up the gratifying work.

Words have meaning. The Holy Spirit helps interpret their meaning for us if we “walk in the Spirit” and are “led by the Spirit”. Our reason is tainted by sin, therefore we need God’s help to understand the meaning of his Word (as revealed in the Holy Scriptures).

So many of you keep writing things like this but it’s not a counter argument, rather you prove my point. If you say this is something we can know apart from the hermeneutical process, then this is ideology pure and simple. If you say that this is your interpretation, then I want you to argue your case. How did you come to this conclusion? My suggestion would be that you read through what I actually wrote and answer to it without returning to this kind of ignorant fundamentalist Sunday school rhetoric.

The real problem with your opinion is that it can be used to defend any ethical decision, no matter how wicked it is.

Sorry mate. I wasn’t trying to argue, just state my “ignorant Fundamentalist S.S. rhetoric” for what it was worth (obviously not much). Now I’ll go back and re-read your post and see if I can better understand your point of view. By the way, I despise “ideology” – see: http://www.mackinac.org/10431

It’s okay. Just to be clear, I’m not saying that you necessary are an ignorant fundamentalist, just that the rhetoric you use is what they use to defend whatever they want to say and do. I don’t want to come across as rude and I hope that you understand what I mean when I say that you can defend any possible decision by using this way of thinking. The logic these people use goes like this: “I’m led by the Spirit, therefore I understand Scripture without the need for hermeneutics, hence I’m right and everyone who doesn’t agree with me are therefore wrong. Consequently I can do whatever I feel is right, even if that would be to start a war, exterminate millions of Jews or kill 77 Norwegians in the name of nationalism.”

I’m not saying that all people who use this line of logic will therefore do horrible things because of it, but to postulate something that provides a moral high ground for yourself apart from everyone else opens up for the possibility… and unfortunately there are all to many people who have taken that route in the name of religion.

OK. Very good. I’ve also encountered that line of argumentation before from those further to my right & left theologically. Although usually associated with more “conservative” types, I’ve seen the same debate tactics used by the so-called “inclusive” Church (mine – Anglican Communion) too. When I can think more clearly (after caffine break), I’ll read more of your essay on this. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. Warm regards,

1.) If you do not want to come across as rude then do not say rude things.

2.) Surely you sink your own point when you say “I hope that you can understand what I mean when I say…” If what you say carries a meaning because you gave it one then the same principle applies to the Bible. The Bible carries at least one meaning because the people who wrote it meant something specific when they did so. If this is not true then your statement, and indeed all of this discussion, is meaningless and your hope for someone else to understand something specific based on the words you have chosen is an ill-founded hope.

Ok I must confess, I did not persue all the comments, but as a child my pastor relied on a verse most intently! Let me state I am pro KJV and my opinion is that every other version is destorted in effort to lead everyone down the wrong path! The first thing mentioned on the mount of Olives was “Be not deceived” referncing the Garden of Eden based on the fact that was the first thing He said and the Garden was the first act of deception! But that is not the question here!

1 Corinthians 10:11
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

This referencing a historical, prophetic and personal meaning! Our church had a preacher so straightforward that he held nothing back! He was insistant that you understand how to study the Bible as well he could! The problem is most distort the interpretation and preach another Jesus!

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Study how diligently!

Matthew 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

You error how by not knowing the scriptures!

2 Timothy 3:5-7
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Do not mistake the power of God or the power of God’s word, he created the earth in 6 days with a spoken word! It is easy to assume they look like words on a page, but they are God’s words and come to life in mans heart and soul every day!

It’s a very rare statement that one translation would be the single correct one and especially so when you are referring to the KJV. I can only assume that you are a New Testament scholar with great knowledge in the greek language, because how else could you make such a statement? So, please enlighten me with your insights on why no other translations are valid.

The rest of your post is seemingly meaningless for the discussion at hand since we’re not arguing for specific interpretations of Scripture, rather we’re discussing theological hermeneutics which cannot be a result of your reading since that would follow the inherently fallacious logic of ‘I interpret the Biblical texts as I do because of how I interpret the Biblical texts’.

Let me state I may not worded my response very well. While I thought I had laid out improper word usage led you astray. They are 3 forms of Bible interpretation laid out by the Bible itself. There is a historical or literal interpretation. There is a prophetic or symbolized interpretation. There is a practical or personal interpretation basically this means that every scripture can applied to do our personal every day lives. This is all referenced in the scripture of 1 Cor 10:11

Ahhh not sure what is going on I see your response to someone of the Catholic faith but when I come the page I may be overlooking it!

Your response is what my second point was referencing! An unbeliever does not need you or your interpretation of the scripture! You underestimate the power of Gods word in the fact that once a person reads it the scripture takes on a life of its own “so to speak”. Do not misinterpret this comment to mean that your interpretation is not a helpful guide! But do not underestimate the power of God’s Word even in the written form!

I don’t, but the power contained within the Biblical texts is irrelevant for the issue I have put forth in the original post. What is interesting to me is that one very short post on biblical hermeneutics makes a whole lot of people assume that I have laid out my whole understanding of Scripture. Of course I haven’t. This is why I write on the page ‘Why Freestyle Christianity’ that comments should be made regarding what I have written, not on what I have left out. This is a blog, not a doctoral dissertation. Anyway, thanks for the comment.

You are correct! I mistaken assumed this is your philosphy of thought based on the fact you wrote it. I apologize. Although my thought could also be interpreted as education for others! Which brings to bear the 3rd point about interpretation. The Bible was written in such way the lay person as well as the theologian could understand its content. The Word of God speaks of itself as a river! It is shallow for the lay person so they will not be incumbered! And it’s can depths are attainable for our feeble minds.

I’m happy that you acknowledge that. If you read the original post in it’s proper context it may come as no surprise that what you just said will be part of my next post on the subject. It will, at least in part, deal with what is normally referred to as “theory of aesthetic effect”.

“For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12

Not dead, not left up to personal interpretation; but living and powerful and the revealer of why we try to make it say what it doesn’t.

“knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Peter 1:20-21

2nd Peter 2 doesn’t speak highly of people who try to insert their own thoughts into scripture.

“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Timothy 2:15

If it were not possible to rightly divide God’s word and understand it, Timothy would not have been instructed to do so. He would have been told to just study until you decide what the truth is depending on your personal views.

Hello J.P. Gustafsson,
This is a great blog. Keep exploring and sharing your thoughts. Religious dogmas are the hiding place for most people…

Literal interpretations induce religious extremism and encourage humanity to externalize these texts and ideological doctrines. This separation prevents teachers and masters from revealing the doctrine’s true purpose, to internally transform, to connect with the enlightenment within, and to awaken diligent practitioners. Is it fair to blame religion for the world’s problems? Yes and no. Historically speaking, Christianity is the most violent religion, that is probably why loving is an important part of it..
Regards,
Yilmaz

With all due respect, Yilmaz, isn’t this a grand over-generalization?
“Literal interpretations induce religious extremism and encourage humanity to externalize these texts and ideological doctrines.”
Externalizing the text, I think, is an extension of over-simplifying complex human problems, which I believe you’ve done. It is precisely because we know that people read texts from complex reading sites (and thus the text cannot be external, truly, as you suggest) that we know that religious extremism emerges out of more than simply reading–I would argue that reading has very little to do with extremism.
A literal reading can lead to all kinds of problems, not least a kind of self-delusion of accessibility to truth (whereas I say above that the reading of a text is a community venture of self-critique). But a literal reading roots that believing community (assuming the extremists are authentically attached to some community) in a system of accountability. If the text gets left behind, where is the accountability? This is not a right-left issue. I see the problem in fascism and nationalism, but I also see it in liberal cultures that lack empathy or root themselves in a zeitgeist-based morality.
That’s my concern.

I am only commenting to make you know of the perfect encounter my cousin’s daughter had reading the blog. She mastered several pieces, which include what it is like to have an awesome helping nature to let a number of people smoothly learn about a variety of specialized topics. You undoubtedly exceeded my expected results. Thanks for supplying those productive, safe, educational not to mention unique thoughts on the topic to Gloria.